Authoritative source of information on Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or as it is now called Military Information Support Operations (MISO). Written by a retired senior Army Officer and former Honorary Colonel of the PSYOP Regiment.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Borderless Cyber PSYOP Raises Legal Issues

Unless you have been living under a rock, you know
that the world is all atwitter over documents released by former NSA
Contractor, Edward Snowden. You should also know that these disclosures have
raised significant concerns about domestic surveillance. It is not a great leap
of faith to see how attention could be focused on other forms of government
action, especially defense or law enforcement activities that may encroach upon
the rights of US Citizens.

The
article notes that the DOD cannot conduct PSYOP in the US nor “target U.S.
citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.” (Source
of the quote not referenced in the article.)

The
article describes actions taken by Navanti, a contractor (http://navantigroup.com/)
in Somalia. The article quotes public records as stating “Navanti was working
as a subcontractor for the Special Operations Command to help conduct
“information operations to engage local populations and counter nefarious
influences” in Africa and Europe. “ The article also raises issues with respect
to the impact of those actions towards a Somali American resident in
Minneapolis.

Warsarme,
had posted extensively on line and it appeared that he was a likely supporter
of al-Shabab, an Islamist militia which has been declared a terrorist
organization. Navanti claims that as
soon as it realized he was based in the US they turned his information over to
the government. Warsarme for his part was quoted: “I’m an
American citizen,” Warsame said in an interview at a cafe in Minneapolis, home
to the largest concentration of Somali refugees in the country. “I don’t
support al-Qaeda. I don’t support al-Shabab. I don’t send them money. I’m not
supporting killing anyone.”

For
the MISO community this is a giant red flag. We need to engage aggressively in
our mission and we need to be able to defend our actions legally as well.
Unfortunately, it is not clear if there is any US agency that has the domestic
responsibility for countering influence activities that are contrary to US
interests.

The
text says nothing about government’s right to observe the speech nor does it
say anything about trying to counter that speech. Cyber Influence is growing in
importance and unlike kinetic trajectories, it is often impossible to predict
where cyber campaigns will impact.

That
being said, we all know perception is reality and that one thing MISO/PSYOP
doesn’t really need is more Congressional scrutiny.

WRT to an agency with the responsibility - that's a good question. Normally Dept of State would be responsible for Public Diplomacy which may be the right answer, but needs to be clearly articulated in policy.